On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 09:30:27AM +0800, liguang wrote: > original migration did not aware of offline case, > so, try to support offline migration quietly > (did not disturb original migration) by pass > VIR_MIGRATE_OFFLINE flag to migration APIs if only > the domain is really inactive, and > migration process will not puzzled by domain > offline and exit unexpectedly. > these changes did not take care of disk images the > domain required, for them could be transferred by > other APIs as suggested, then VIR_MIGRATE_OFFLINE > should not combined with VIR_MIGRATE_NON_SHARED_*. > if you want a persistent migration, > you should do "virsh migrate --persistent" youself. > > v12: > rebased for conflicting with commit 2f3e2c0c434218a3d656c08779cb98b327170e11, > and take in some messages from Doug Goldstein's patch > https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2012-October/msg00957.html Great, the patch is now behaving exactly as I expect. I've only one question - in the logs of libvirtd on the target host I always see a warning message: 2012-11-02 12:07:08.789+0000: 31375: warning : qemuDomainObjSetJobPhase:690 : 'migration in' async job is owned by thread 31374 I'm not sure what we're doing to trigger it, but I think we need to find out & avoid it. I would ack the patch if we can fix the warning Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list